Tuesday, August 09, 2005

The war we cannot win

Every now and then, I am pleased to see someone remembering the unnecessary and immoral war, the war that has needlessly cost this country countless millions, the war perpetuated by lies and misleading evidence. This is the war we cannot win, a war that has seen more civilian casualties than probably the US has ever fought. No, I am not talking about Iraq, but the war right here at home, the war on drugs.

John Tierney has an editorial today in the New York Times in which he asks: “why spend three decades repeating the errors of Prohibition for a drug that was never as dangerous as alcohol in the first place?” Good question.

The number of myths people subscribe to in order to justify criminalizing plants that in many cases do little more harm that alcohol and often effect no one but the perpetrator are so many, I could not possibly list all of them in one post. Fortunately, many sites do a thorough job on documenting the sheer absurdity of the drug war, including “
Drug War Distortions ,” “ Common Sense for Drug Policy ,” “ Drug War Facts ,” and “ Human Rights and the Drug War ,” all of which are well-cited and document their evidence for corroboration.

Allow me to me clear: I do not propose legalizing all drugs in this country (although there are many libertarians who make cogent arguments for exactly that). I should also say that anyone who commits a violent crime, speeds on the highway, runs a red-light, or countless other offenses should be punished, period. I also would have no objections to making it a crime to do certain things WHILE taking drugs, just as we do alcohol. What I do propose is more common sense in our drug laws, legalizing marijuana completely, and treating addicts the same as we do alcoholics, with help and sympathy rather than incarceration.

Let me take one proposition and focus on that for a moment. Why should marijuana be legalized? Several reasons:

Cost
The US spends countless millions incarcerating people. Indeed, according to the ACLU, we have the highest prison population in the world, and even as a percentage of the general population, rank higher than every country in Western Europe. Furthermore, a full 2/3 of the prison population are serving time for non-violent offenses. Of those, a disproportionate number are drug-offenders. According to one site , “in 2003, 45 percent of the 1,678,192 total arrests for drug abuse violations were for marijuana -- a total of 755,186. Of those, 662,886 people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. This is an increase from 2000, when a total of 734,497 Americans were arrested for marijuana offenses, of which 646,042 were for possession alone.”

A 1998 study conducted by the public health group Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy (PLNDP), a group of 37 distinguished physicians that includes high ranking officials from the Administrations of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, shows that on a nationwide average, imprisoning an addict costs $25,900 per year, while treatment costs only $4400-6800 per year.

In short, the crusade against marijuana is extremely expensive and there is little evidence that we are getting much for what we are paying. The number of people who have used the drug continue to climb, and we now even ask presidential candidates whether or not they have ever tried it (I believe every candidate running for office at the time of the primaries admitted to having tried pot at least once except for Joe Leiberman).

Aside from the millions legalizing marijuana would save, think of all of the money it would now earn, subject to taxation and government control rather than leaving in the hands of the black-market. Native-Americans have been using the drug for millennium before the US government told them to stop, yet it was disease and muskets that wiped out their civilization, not the effects of smoking peyote.

Freedom of choice
The real objection that I have to criminalizing marijuana is not economic, but moral. In a country that likes to brag about liberty and personal freedom, what right does the federal government have to tell me that I cannot do something that harms no one but myself and is less dangerous than many “legal” activities like drinking or being addicted to painkillers? This is especially the case when the federal government goes against the wishes of numerous states, who have legalized medical marijuana but are subject to federal penalties. Neither rape nor murder is a federal crime, but a state crime, why should drugs be any different?

The “gateway theory”
But wait, you wonder. Doesn’t taking marijuana lead to harder drugs, thus making its legality a recipe for encouraging more illicit drugs use? This “gateway” myth is so devoid of any systematic evidence, it is unfortunate that so many continue to subscribe to it. Let’s look at the numbers:

According to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services in a national survey from 2000, 76.3 million people have tried marijuana, while only 2.78 million have ever tried heroin in their lifetimes and only 5.3 million have ever tried cocaine in their lives. The figures for monthly use are similar: 10.7 million Americans admit to being regular marijuana users, yet only 1.2 million admit to using cocaine each month - 1 for every 9 marijuana users - and 130,000 people use heroin monthly, or 1 for every 80 regular marijuana users.

As the Institute of Medicine succinctly put it in 1999, “There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.”

In short, contrary to what the government has tried to tell you, taking marijuana will not cause you to shoot your best friend or run over a little girl, at least any more than getting drunk or sniffing glue.

I should finish this post with a personal disclaimer: With one exception over 6 years ago, I do not now, nor have I ever used drugs, including marijuana. I do not think it is “cool,” or makes people feel better, but I do think taking them is foolish and potentially dangerous for many long term health issues (I say potentially because, of course, there's no proof that marijuana use actually leads to mental health problems and to my knowledge not a single human being has ever died from overdosing on the drug… ever). I do not advocate legalizing marijuana so that I can stop hiding, but because it makes no moral or economic sense. Perhaps I will dedicate some future post elaborating on this important issue.

4 comments:

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I knew it was Marc from the first typo! (and, having perused his blog, from the subject matter by the second paragraph).

I'm largely in - to continue a term from previous posts - "agreeance" with your larger point. A funny headline I saw a while back summed it up, perhaps in The Onion - "War Over - Drugs Win." Acknowledging the victimless nature of drug use doesn't condone it, nor preclude incredibly restrictive zoning. Although I still agree that treatment should be emphasized and criminal remedies de-emphasized, I'm not sure that I'd still go so far as I once would have, to sweep this all into the philosophically clean category of decriminalization.

One of the big problems from the perspective of legal history is how you reconcile these ideas with the legally regulated distribution of drugs for medical purposes. Unless one is willing to shelf the proven method of approving or rejecting new drugs for medical use based on FDA-regulated trials, a process which largely and successfully encourages medical innovation, then distribution as such will have to be addressed. Unlike with caffeine, or even nicotine and alcohol, (the other drugs available for non-medical uses) there will be casualties, angry relatives and lawsuits, especially seeing as how I don't see the FDA or any analogous regulatory body promulgating litigation-reducing guidelines for the "acceptable" distribution of ecstasy and acid, to name a few, or products made in a makeshift lab or grown in their backyard or basement. The ill effects will still be there, yet legally no one will accept that that the liability for these ill effects should remain completely with their unwise or addicted loved one, or any other poor S.O.B. that made an unwise choice.

Therefore, _strict liability_ as a legal standard incentivizes unregulated "distributors" to take the greatest share of responsibility available for any mischief involved with, or medical problems resulting from their "product." It might also encourage designer drug makers to erroneously assume that they can make something "safer," but as with so many other unexplored policy ideas, it's hard to know what that genie might look like until it's out of the bottle. It makes even this classical liberal admit that with regards to available regulatory schemes, sometimes "the devil you know is safer..."

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Although I should admit that I object to the Raisch decision, as a matter of both the constitutional principles innappropriately defined (mere "production" is NOT an aspect of economic activity if it is not linked to distribution. I "produce" urine and other substances on a regular basis. Can the government regulate _those_ processes on the basis of production alone constituting economic activity?) as well as on the inhumane conclusion resulting from the finding of fact by that jerk Stephen Breyer, who so much as admitted in his opening comments that he accepted the doctor's finding that his patient would probably die without the treatment which they had found to be helpful. He made it clear that this wasn't the issue, or obviously even an issue that should have had any bearing on his inhumane decision.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-1454

End of second paragraph, first section of opinion of court, delivered by Stephen Breyer. Doesn't seem right.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Sorry for what must have seemed like an exaggeration. Usually they're homonyms, like "effect," typically a noun, being used like a verb, "affect," in the 3rd paragraph. No big deal.

Use of "agreeance" started with Tom's reference to Fred Durst's vocabulary in the GSAVE discussion a few days back.